Farrow and Farrow (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 248

Farrow and Farrow (Child support) [2025] ARTA 248 (14 February 2025)

Applicant/s: Ms Farrow

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Mr Farrow

Tribunal Number: 2024/BC028605
Tribunal: Member K Hamilton
Place:Brisbane
Date:14 February 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – change to the likely pattern of care – withholding care – existing percentage of care determinations not revoked – interim period not applied – new determinations made – reasonable action – special circumstances for late objection – decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Ms Farrow and Mr Farrow are the parents of [Child 1] (born August 2005).
On 20 August 2019, Ms Farrow advised Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) that she had 0% care and Mr Farrow 100% care of [Child 1] from 22 July 2019. Ms Farrow stated that Mr Farrow had been withholding care of [Child 1] since 22 July 2019.
Prior to this notification, Child Support had recorded Ms Farrow as having 49% care of [Child 1] and Mr Farrow 51% care of [Child 1], in line with court orders dated [in] September 2019 that provided for the parties to have equal care of [Child 1].
On 29 August 2019, Ms Farrow advised Child Support that she did not want the care of [Child 1] changed. On the same day, Child Support made a decision to not change the care percentage for [Child 1].
Mr Farrow objected to this decision on 4 December 2019. On 19 March 2020, a Child Support objections officer allowed the objection and determined that the care percentages for [Child 1] would be changed to 100% care to Mr Farrow and 0% care to Ms Farrow from 22 July 2019, notified on 20 August 2019.
On 24 September 2024, Ms Farrow applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) seeking further review.
From 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The matter was heard on 21 January 2025. Ms Farrow attended the hearing in person accompanied by a support person. Mr Farrow participated in the hearing by telephone.
The Tribunal had regard to relevant documents produced by Child Support, numbered as pages 1–604. Following the hearing, Ms Farrow provided further documents to the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Farrow and Farrow (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ARTA 248
Decision Date: 14 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirmed the decision of Child Support Registrar to change the care percentages for [Child 1] between Ms Farrow and Mr Farrow. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the existing care percentage determinations should be revoked, whether an interim care period applied, what the new percentage of care determinations were, and whether there were special circumstances which prevented Mr Farrow lodging an objection within 28 days. The Tribunal found that the existing care percentage determinations must be revoked as the change in care did not correspond with the existing percentages. An interim care period did not apply as the change in care occurred more than 14 weeks after the existing care determinations were made. The new care percentages for Ms Farrow and Mr Farrow were 0% and 100%, respectively, and these applied from 20 August 2019 and 22 July 2019. The Tribunal found that there were no special circumstances that prevented Mr Farrow from lodging an objection within 28 days of being notified of Child Support’s decision of 29 August 2019. As a result, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
This case demonstrates the importance of timely notification of changes in care arrangements to Child Support. The Tribunal held that the change in care must be notified within 28 days to trigger the revocation of existing care percentages and the making of new care percentages. Failure to do so results in the new care percentages applying from the date the objection is lodged, rather than the date the change in care occurred. This has significant financial implications for the parties, as the new care percentages affect the amount of child support payable and recoverable. The Tribunal also found that an interim care period could not apply where there was a previous care determination made by Child Support, even if the person with reduced care was taking reasonable action to have the care arrangements complied with. This decision highlights the importance of complying with the legislative requirements for care determinations and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Orders